Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (5887)	1/19/2004 10:15:46 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

ROFL people who travel are bad for the world? That's pretty funny. I suppose people who "travel" for war and conquest are bad (that's all the colonial powers, that is, including America)- but people who travel to see, and not to kill, they are pretty good for the world. People who travel to see the world, and understand it are not only more interesting people, but they help make the world more understandable for the people at home. And let's face it, people who haven't been somewhere rarely understand it. Oh they THINK they do, but they don't. I come from a travelling family, and I'm glad of it. I think it's funny that anyone would assert that travel is bad. Next you'll have people arguing against learning, and science- oh wait- that's been done, frequently. Just shows the ignorant will argue against anything, especially if it is beyond their ken.

To: zonder who wrote (5887)	1/19/2004 11:36:20 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 20773

I am sorry, but your "argument" that people who travel are bad for the world is quite ridiculous. Those who travel naturally like to think of themselves as an elite compared to those who don't. After all, they have gone to all this expense and trouble, so they need to persuade themselves that it is all worth it. For those find travelling rewarding, that's fine. As long as they're peaceloving, which sadly is too seldom, and don't damage the places they visit, which sadly they often do, or spread crippling diseases among the populations they're visiting, which is sadly too often, they are generally harmless. For those who find staying at home rewarding, that's fine too. Neither side needs to contend that they are better, or understand more, or are somehow superior. I was initially responding to the nose-in-the-air attitude of those who were claiming that those who travelled around were superior to those who didn't. That whole argument, of course, os bogus, as I simply pointed out. After all, if Hitler had stayed home in Austria, who thinks the world wouldn't be a better place today? War and conquest require leaving home; if we just all stayed at home, there would be no war, and the Mayans and Incas would still be alive. If you like to travel, and if you do it without bringing harm to those you visit, that's fine. Enjoy it. But don't try to claim any sort of superiority over those who find that the world they live in where they are provides more than ample opportunities for study, understanding, and living a full, complete, and rewarding life.